Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Widest vintage lens?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:41 am    Post subject: Widest vintage lens? Reply with quote
I saw the Vivitar 17mm. Is there something else even wider than that?
Considering is gonna be mounted on a 7D the crop sensor plays a role here...
Don't need a crazy wide though, just curious what else is possible to found to check price and quality, as for instance the Vivitar 17mm is not super cheap compared to an used/new Canon 18-55.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
fish eye, not too 'fish eye" in APS-C
canon fd 15/2,8
zenitar 16/2,8
pentax takumar 17/4

wide
Tokina 17/3,5, tamron 17/3,5,
samyang 14/2,8 well its new, not vintage


PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
sigma 14mm/3.5 (it's not fisheye)


PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you!
It seems the cheapest ones are the Pentax and the Zenitar, but the bid is not done yet on eBay, so I expect the price will rise.
Probably not easy to find a cheap wide.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Zenitar isn't really vintage! What is your reason for getting such a wide old lens for your 7D? I strongly suspect any modern APS-C zoom lens with outperform an old lens on crop. E.g. Canon kit lens was better than the Tamron SP 17/3.5 on my 40D.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 7:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Zenitar isn't really vintage! What is your reason for getting such a wide old lens for your 7D? I strongly suspect any modern APS-C zoom lens with outperform an old lens on crop. E.g. Canon kit lens was better than the Tamron SP 17/3.5 on my 40D.


Yeah, I think that probably I'll go with the 18-55.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 9:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
+1 for 18-55 version with IS is best for money imho (no fisheye)


PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
If you can afford one, go for the Sigma 17-70 ef-s lens for canon which is VASTLY superior to canons 18-55 and not too far short of canon's 17-85 either


PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Canon 18-55 (IS version) is a pretty sharp lens, despite the fact it's a kit lens and costs so little. My copy is even sharper then Tokina 12-24 in the 18-24 range.
The only real issue with it is it's plastic and of course, has a very cheap and flimsy feel to it, which is why I almost never use it. Smile


PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I wouldn't pay much for that 18-55, it will break/fall apart at some point, both of mine did.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The 'widest' vintage lens I know if is the (T2) 12mm f/8 variously badged as Vemar, Lentar, Spiratone -- if you see any 12/8, that's it. It is VERY fishy. The earlier version has a one-piece lens hood; the later version has a two-piece hood, and if you leave the hood ring on, you get a full-circle image on FF.

The 12/8 is fixed-focus, with Waterhouse stops of f/8, f/11, and f/16. My copy isn't built right and won't reach infinity, so I use it for subjects 10-20cm away where the background doesn't matter. Other copies do reach infinity. I can probably reach infinity if I just shave away a little more of the T2 adapter...

The 12/8 typically sells for ~US$100. Just something to consider, eh?


PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
So, the 18-55 is good but not sturdy. I guess it's like the nifty-fifty. To be honest I haven't got any problem with the 50mm so far, even if it's plastic. Bought 1 year ago still working fine. Of course needs more care than other lenses.

I didn't know about the Vemar, Spiratone and the Lentar. I'm wondering how good this lenses are and what would be the result on the ASP-C sensor as like I said don't need a real fisheye but just a good wide. I'll look for some samples.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
pdesopo wrote:
I didn't know about the Vemar, Spiratone and the Lentar. I'm wondering how good this lenses are and what would be the result on the ASP-C sensor as like I said don't need a real fisheye but just a good wide. I'll look for some samples.


To answer your question, it's not very good. Very Happy And I'll second what RioRico said - "VERY fishy".

In the center, the quality can be surprisingly good... but as you go out across the frame (even on APS-C), it drops off pretty quickly. Neutral

I use mine quite frequently, enough so that it has a dedicated space in my primary camera bag. But I don't use it very much for single shots - mostly only for spherical panoramas, where the edges will overlap and be blended away for the final composite image. I also never use it on anything but f16, or else the bad edges creep too far into the center for my tastes, so it is pretty much an outdoor-use-only lens for me. Wink


PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Proper term for "not fisheye" = rectilinear.
Examples of each: http://www.arri.de/camera/tutorials/what_is_rectilinear_what_is_a_fisheye.html

Seems like some are mixing AF into the discussion (odd for a MF lens forum).


PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I wouldn't pay much for that 18-55, it will break/fall apart at some point, both of mine did.


I wonder, were these the first non-IS versions? I have the second IS version, which is much better optically than the first version. I don't treat it like a hockey puck, but I don't exactly treat it gently either. Anyway, mine is still hanging in there after two and a half years.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cheekygeek wrote:
Proper term for "not fisheye" = rectilinear.
Examples of each: http://www.arri.de/camera/tutorials/what_is_rectilinear_what_is_a_fisheye.html

Seems like some are mixing AF into the discussion (odd for a MF lens forum).


Thanks for the explanation.
About the AF I see your point. Despite I love manual lenses, the thing is since it seems hard to find a good cheap manual lens I think I don't have much choice.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, this is especially true if you're shooting with a crop-body DSLR.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The sad truth for MFL'ers is that good wide rectilinear ultrawide MFL's just can't be found, except maybe at astronomical cost. Newer AF UW's for dSLR's are better, both optically and in price / performance.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
RioRico wrote:
The sad truth for MFL'ers is that good wide rectilinear ultrawide MFL's just can't be found, except maybe at astronomical cost.


Well, there is the Samyang 14mm, which from everything I've read, is a very nice lens. It's a bit pricey, but certainly not astronomical. No reasonably priced zooms, though.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1